THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1938 MOBILISING THE NATION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23169, 15 October 1938, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1938 MOBILISING THE NATION

At a conference of the British National Chamber of Trade the question of mobilising industry and other essential services has been I discussed this week. This discussion was prompted by recent critical events in international relations, in the light—or rather the shadow —of a narrow escape from a war of terrible dimensions. In those anxious days it was realised that without thorough and effective co-ordination of the nation's material and human resources there could be no intelligent assurance of safety, let alone useful participation in a struggle for the preserving of the kind of corporate life dear to Britons and essential for the welfare of the world. The fact of escape could not blind any British eyes to the need for preparedness against a sudden emergency; on the contrary, it impressed the necessity of being ready, not merely with defensive forces adequately armed, but also with efficient services needful for the support and maintenance of all such effort. Inevitably, all this thought turned upon the possibility of war; it had been too imminent to be forgotten. Nevertheless, quite as obvious to many minds was the urgent desirability of envisaging the mobilisation of national resources as imperative in times of established peace, those "piping times" when it is fatally easy to become slack and carefree. War or no war, national strength is requisite, and it comes not save by organisation. In the presence of other nations straining for competitive advantage, no nation can afford to be indifferent to the dependence, even of a numerous population, upon orderly and systematic effort; and, in so far as competition gives place to cooperation, it is still desirable that the contribution to international good be worthily capable.

j Observers of varieties of national development in these days have had ample reason to note the comparative ease with which totalitarian States can organise. Where decisions are reached by one dominant will and given effect by fiat, the job is done without hesitation, without dallying, without timidity of touch. A plan can be worked out overnight and put into operation next morning. It is the same if a narrow, select coterie be associated with the dictating head. Democracies, slower and more meditative in action, take time to get going. Freedom of discussion means delay when a really parliamentary system has to be worked. There may be more wisdom in the decisions, but while it is being beaten into shape the metal has grown cold. The situation has changed; the "psychological moment" is lost. While arrangements for launching a scheme are being perfected in general parley, the tide of opportunity has gone out. Lined up alongside totalitarian promptitude of movement, free peoples may !be beaten before ihey start; the i race is to the swift off the mark. What is the remedy? Not the abject throwing away of freedom and acceptance of a dragooning against which it is useless to protest. That is, sooner rather than later, to breed individual weakness, with which, after all, even the best organisation cannot accomplish much. There is no common purpose—although there may be combined effort—among the dull cogs of a machine; that is why every nation built upon slavery has gone down into the dust. Voluntary toil lasts longest and does most. The will of a people is its greatest asset. To undermine that, gradually or at one fell swoop, is to squander resources, not to invest them. So the president of the National Chamber of Trade, while bent upon the mobilisation of industry and other essential services, has urged that private enterprise be preserved.

There need be no conflict between such enterprise and national organisation. The choice is not between a rabble and a slave-team, between a chaos wherein every Tom, Dick and Harry does as he pleases, and a mechanical efficiency in which they have all lost their personal identity. A better way, the British way, is to give every To>m, Dick and Harry a chance to attain leadership through proved merit in individual service, and to organise all units of a truly human team in a fashion safeguarding that chance. Is a plan of that sort possible 1 Does it work 1 Clear answer came out of the recent international crisis. In Germany, it is true, there was menacingly rapid military mobilisation —under stern

compulsion. In Britain, immediately on Mr. Chamberlain's broadcast call, there was a rush of men —and women, be it noted—to the local authorities for direction as to how and where they could most usefully serve. The response was as earnest as it was instantaneous. Which was the better outcome, measured by what deeply matters? But there is something better still. It is to have all means of organisation ready, not merely against assault of alien arms but also for the due carrying on of the nation's business in time of peace. Into the plans can fit individual initiative. So will be born a force of maximum strength in its units, and therefore in the aggregate. It has become falsely proverbial that Britain "muddles through." History denies the shallow cliche at every turn. The truth is that the British temperament is both stable and adaptable; the second quality is based upon the first. Mercurial peoples can make only unrelated dashes; the overdisciplined cannot be bent without breaking. Yet there should not be foolish trust in the valiant enthusiasm of a hectic occasion. To plan the work is as needful as to work the plan. In contemporary happenings the lesson is being severely taught, and in the urgent applying of it is a duty for every section of the British people.